I agree with you completely

I agree totally. There is not much that can be done other than ignoring these types of threads. What is even worse is when the thread title is a question, and then the first post says something like "What do you think?"

While I agree about such casual remarks or questions, nevertheless if these spark a conversation, then don't they serve a purpose? And isn't it up to the community to help steer the thread into a real philosophical (in the general sense) discussion?

All though in general i agree, in my own threads (one's i have tried to start) and some others. I tend to be so specific it inhibits conversation or becomes to much of a chore to answer such specific questions or address such specific observations. Somewhere there is a happy medium without being a troll thread.

If I urinate in the sea, do you think it might cause a flood somewhere..what do you think?

Sorry I could not resist it...:bigsmile:

you ruined it with the second sentence xris lol.

I do it occasionally because;
That's all i got.
Think it is interesting but no idea why
Would rather you slove.
Like to keep it as open as possible.
Wider appeal.
Wider demographic.
Like to read others thoughts and writting more than my own.
ETC

What is a troll? becuase I'm not getting any 'glory' i'm letting you have it.

I make up for it by overstuffing other threads.

And is there an overfull thread?
I have made this mistake of answering my propositions to widely and fully which leads to no partisipation at all.
That's just not good business.

What am i here for if not largely to hear and learn how you would question structure conceptualise debate answer?
Self satisfaction is rather boring.

I do agree some of it could be better equipped and explained for more people to be able to join in the discussion instead of thinking that everyone will automatically understand what the heck you are talking about.
Another reason alot of mine are the simple concepts but over-looked because of their simplicity.

And some people could be guilty of this by giving just their one line answers.
Where does it end?

This place gets slow or should i say not as fascinating as i need to stay interested, it is my duty to keep throwing even unformed ideas at you.
Thanks for your time, sometime sun, guilty but not wrong.

I think one sentence threads can sometimes be interesting and thought provoking.
It really depends on the depth of the question. Some questions leave little room for expansion into important topics.

I like short, thoughtful replies. A dialogue something like a game of catch. This method seems to provoke the most change in my personal philosophy, and also serves to strengthen some of my beliefs.

Any thread that produces a spirited and thoughtful dialogue seems a good one ,to me.

Socratic dialogue sometimes amounts to one sentence exchanges. Why can't there be such dialogue here in addition to the longer stuff?

Many times, when an opening post is specific, people do not stick to that point and bring in other things that are tangential to what the thread is supposed to be about. Here is an example of such a thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/metaphysics/7708-did-samuel-johnson-misunderstand-george-berkeley.html

The original question is very narrow, yet many in the thread are discussing things that are irrelevant to that narrow question. They should have started another thread, but they did not, and now it is clogged with things that are irrelevant to the original topic. Whether or not Berkeley has any good reasons for his position is not relevant to whether or not Johnson misunderstood Berkeley.

So, if people are going to make the specific into a general thread anyway, what is the point in trying to deal with something very specific? Why not just post some broad idea expressed in one sentence?

I think short opening posts and threads that meander off course are fine (I like the latter a lot actually). The problem is when the opening post isn't sufficient to start discussion. Sure the other people can do the work themselves, but they could also have started a thread themselves if they had something to say unprompted.

I agree that it is a problem when an opening post isn't sufficient to start a discussion, but it has nothing to do with whether the opening post is one sentence or not. I have read quite a few lengthy posts that have said nothing. In my opinion, it is far better to say nothing in few words than to say nothing at great length. In fact, the fewer words, the better.

That's all I mean. There are one-sentence threads that can be real zingers - can't think of one right at the moment - but some of them are not. I just look for a sign that the poster has given his/her question a bit of thought. Not a big deal though, still can't keep away.:bigsmile:

My all-time favorite!

Thread Title: Atheists are wrong.

Opening Post: What do you think?

I have nothing against one sentence thread openers, but they have to be something that can actually start a conversation. Many solely instigate, befuddle, or are simple statements that do not pose a question or puzzle. At least if the opening poster elaborates a bit, then it is sometimes possible see what the other person intended to say, is trying to say, or providing fodder for.

I think what is ultimately worse are these really long dense posts that seem like academic papers or at least an attempt at such.

I don't know. After all, Kant began one of his books with the question, "How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?" I think it may depend on the one-liner.

Yes I suppose so. But I like to feel as though whoever wrote the OP is a participant in whatever develops. It is more a question of attitude. There are some contributors who only enter the occasional remark, but it has an angle or an insight that makes it interesting. There are others whom I feel are just fishing. But then I guess we can all choose which ones to respond to.

---------- Post added 04-03-2010 at 12:44 PM ----------

there are a few who Kan, but many more who......

Concerning fishing and those who start a thread but aren't active (visible) participants in what develops - I really think some people honestly just want to see what other people think about something they are wondering about. Such people don't necessarily have anything they can, or wish to, contribute. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

"Philosophy" in the name Philosophy Forum can be taken either in a very strict sense or in a more general sense. Fortunately, I think, this forum and its community allows and encourages discussions at both ends of this delimited continuum---indeed, it provides a bridge, or "middle way" between the extremes--- and Members may decide to participate in either or both.

"Different Strokes for Different Folks." Hugh Hefner

Until someone with the power to do so tells me I have to read all posts, and then I have to respond to all post...I have no problem with what anyone else has to say or not say.

It's a choice we are each allowed to make and I think it's a good thing and we should all be thankful for it.

Lost1

One of those fewer the words the better people.